RankingEffort benchmarks

Kimi-K2.6 effort benchmarks

Compare measured Low, Medium, High and other settings. Every number keeps its source.

Model

Kimi-K2.6

46 measured results · 3 reported effort labels · 36 benchmark/harness combinations. Model evidence and sources →

Capability score evidence

Kimi-K2.6 · Reasoning: 28.8 overall comparison score. Meets the overall evidence requirements.

Which sources carry the weight?

Artificial Analysis · 75.0% direct comparison weight · independent
Moonshot AI · 25.0% direct comparison weight · provider report

These shares describe the comparisons entering the fit, not fractions of the final score.

How sensitive is this score?

Remove one evaluator or family and refit the graph against the same overall panel. Values use the matching dataset audited 2026-09-12. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals; ranking eligibility may also change.

Removed evidence	Recomputed score	Change
Artificial Analysis	Comparison path lost	—
ARC Prize	31.3	+2.5
Datacurve	27.1	-1.7
LiveCodeBench	28.7	-0.1
Scale	29.5	+0.8
Terminal-Bench	29.2	+0.4
Cognition	29.5	+0.7
LiveBench	28.6	-0.2
SWE-rebench	29.0	+0.2
Epoch AI	28.3	-0.5
Vals AI	28.6	-0.2
Provider reports · Anthropic	28.8	+0.0
Provider reports · Moonshot AI	28.8	+0.0
Provider reports · Meta	28.7	-0.0
Provider reports · Mistral	28.8	+0.0
All provider reports	28.8	-0.0

Every benchmark family

Removed evidence	Recomputed score	Change
terminal-bench	24.8	-4.0
mmmu-pro	32.2	+3.5
arc-agi	31.2	+2.4
deepswe	27.1	-1.7
itbench	29.6	+0.8
frontiercode	29.5	+0.7
automationbench	29.4	+0.6
briefcase	29.4	+0.6
epoch-game-puzzles	28.2	-0.6
gpqa	28.2	-0.6
aa-lcr	28.3	-0.5
apex-agents	28.3	-0.5
ifbench	28.3	-0.5
omniscience	29.1	+0.4
simpleqa	29.1	+0.4
tau-bench	28.5	-0.3
enterprise-ops	29.1	+0.3
harvey	28.5	-0.2
scicode	28.5	-0.2
swe-rebench	29.0	+0.2
gdpval	29.0	+0.2
frontiermath	28.9	+0.2
mmlu-pro	28.9	+0.2
multi-swe-bench	28.6	-0.1
arc-agi-3	28.6	-0.1
aime	28.9	+0.1
swe-atlas-qna	28.7	-0.1
livebench-instructions	28.9	+0.1
livebench-language	28.9	+0.1
hle	28.9	+0.1
swe-atlas-test-writing	28.7	-0.1
vibe-code	28.7	-0.1
vals-finance-agent	28.7	-0.1
livecodebench	28.7	-0.1
gmmlu	28.8	+0.1
vals-legal-research	28.7	-0.1
livebench-data	28.7	-0.0
livebench-reasoning	28.7	-0.0
vals-code-migration	28.7	-0.0
livebench-math	28.8	+0.0
swe-atlas-refactoring	28.7	-0.0
critpt	28.8	+0.0
analyst-agent	28.8	+0.0
gdp-pdf	28.8	+0.0
swe-bench-pro	28.8	-0.0
math500	28.8	+0.0
vals-excel-modeling	28.8	-0.0
livebench-coding	28.8	-0.0
enigma-eval	28.8	+0.0

What evidence is missing from the fit?

Across all collected settings for this model: 132 observations, 33 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 99 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

2 · Benchmark family or source protocol has not been reviewed
15 · Effort is not identified
11 · No matched opponent in this evaluation unit
1 · Agent swarm execution is not an individual model configuration.
40 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
29 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately
1 · Microsoft report Table 11 and section 4.1: MAI Terminal-Bench removes timeouts and uses a minimal ReAct harness; comparator values are cited from other model releases. A common evaluation protocol is not established.

Inspect every observation and exclusion →

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100

AKimi-K2.6 · Reasoning5 of 7 capabilities supported

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

Agentic
A30.2Supported
Hard reasoning
A38.4Supported
Coding
A35.6Supported
Human pref
Unknown
Knowledge
A32.2Supported
Multimodal
A35.0Supported
Long context
A59.9Preliminary

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Compare this configuration →Explore the model evidence profile →

These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

Benchmark / source	Reasoning	Non-reasoning	Unspecified
AA-Briefcase EloArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Briefcase is an agentic knowledge work benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis. AA-Briefcase Elo is a combined metric that aggregates rubric pass rate, analytical quality Elo and presentation Elo · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-09-12.	819.92 Elo Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
APEX-Agents-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	28.47% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	81% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	69.67% Reported settings Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6-non-reasoning	Not reported
AutomationBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of task objectives completed with no guardrail violations · Higher is better · Benchmark developed by Zapier · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	13.02% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
CritPtArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Argonne and UIUC, with contributions from 60+ researchers globally · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	8% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	1.43% Reported settings Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6-non-reasoning	Not reported
EnterpriseOps-Gym-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Overall task success rate across all eight enterprise domains (oracle tool mode) · Benchmark developed by ServiceNow Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	38.53% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
GDP.pdf: All-passArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of attempts where every atomic criterion passed · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	13% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
GDPval-AA v2 LeaderboardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Elo rating for performance on real-world work tasks · Anchored to a human baseline of 1,000 · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-09-12.	1,115.31 Elo Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
GPQA DiamondArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	91.11% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	78.79% Reported settings Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6-non-reasoning	Not reported
Harvey LAB-AA: Criterion Pass RateArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of atomic pass/fail rubric criteria the deliverables satisfy, graded by a single LLM judge · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	84.12% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	37.49% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	19.56% Reported settings Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6-non-reasoning	Not reported
IFBenchArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	75.99% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	44.29% Reported settings Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6-non-reasoning	Not reported
ITBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Combined public and private Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) tasks · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	31.19% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	79.36% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
AA-Omniscience IndexArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer. Scores range from -100 to 100, where 0 means as many correct as incorrect answers, and negative scores mean more incorrect than correct. · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: index. Source collected 2026-09-12.	5.3 Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	-9.18 Reported settings Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6-non-reasoning	Not reported
AA-Omniscience AccuracyArtificial Analysis · 6000 questions; 1 attempt; correct-answer share; GPT-5.6 Luna medium grader Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Accuracy (higher is better) measures the proportion of correctly answered questions out of all questions, regardless of whether the model chooses to answer · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	32.6% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	24.3% Reported settings Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6-non-reasoning	Not reported
SciCodeArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	51.5% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
𝜏²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	95.91% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	93.86% Reported settings Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6-non-reasoning	Not reported
𝜏³-BankingArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Sierra Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	23.3% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	43.94% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	37.88% Reported settings Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6-non-reasoning	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v2.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	65.92% Reported settings Kimi K2.6; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/kimi-k2-6; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
Epoch · Chess Puzzles · v1.1.4Epoch AI · Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.1.4; scorer model_extracted_exact_match Benchmark details Epoch AI internal evaluation. Mean accuracy under the published setting; exact task version and scorer stay separate. Related tasks share a family budget. Data by Epoch AI, CC BY. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	26% Reported settings Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.1.4; scorer model_extracted_exact_match; model=kimi-k2.6; run=4MWuvJB4YXGnGz27Y74cqW; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv
Epoch · FrontierMath Tier 4 · v2.0.0Epoch AI · Epoch AI Inspect; task 2.0.0; scorer verification_code Benchmark details Epoch AI internal evaluation. Mean accuracy under the published setting; exact task version and scorer stay separate. Related tasks share a family budget. Data by Epoch AI, CC BY. FrontierMath was developed with OpenAI funding and unequal access to part of the question set; this result is from Epoch's evaluation. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	25.64% Reported settings Epoch AI Inspect; task 2.0.0; scorer verification_code; model=kimi-k2.6; run=eVKA2eavdRAbSN6AnzyBxA; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv
Epoch · FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 · v2.0.0Epoch AI · Epoch AI Inspect; task 2.0.0; scorer verification_code Benchmark details Epoch AI internal evaluation. Mean accuracy under the published setting; exact task version and scorer stay separate. Related tasks share a family budget. Data by Epoch AI, CC BY. FrontierMath was developed with OpenAI funding and unequal access to part of the question set; this result is from Epoch's evaluation. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	57.19% Reported settings Epoch AI Inspect; task 2.0.0; scorer verification_code; model=kimi-k2.6; run=BxrNfyMffkVUq4n7U5eK3Q; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv
Epoch · GPQA diamond · v1.0.8Epoch AI · Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.0.8; scorer choice Benchmark details Epoch AI internal evaluation. Mean accuracy under the published setting; exact task version and scorer stay separate. Related tasks share a family budget. Data by Epoch AI, CC BY. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	90.78% Reported settings Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.0.8; scorer choice; model=kimi-k2.6; run=LjgJoDosTLkiGVT59smA7q; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv
Epoch · Mystery Game Puzzles · v1.0.4 · Tool submissionEpoch AI · Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.0.4; scorer agent_submitted_next_move_scorer Benchmark details Epoch AI internal evaluation. Mean accuracy under the published setting; exact task version and scorer stay separate. Related tasks share a family budget. Data by Epoch AI, CC BY. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	12% Reported settings Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.0.4; scorer agent_submitted_next_move_scorer; model=kimi-k2.6_none; run=8iiRQiAoCepDELQfUv3VDq; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv	18% Reported settings Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.0.4; scorer agent_submitted_next_move_scorer; model=kimi-k2.6; run=RA5MRbmWJpFPR29BQxfvZt; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv
Epoch · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · v1.1.3Epoch AI · Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.1.3; scorer model_extracted_exact_match Benchmark details Epoch AI internal evaluation. Mean accuracy under the published setting; exact task version and scorer stay separate. Related tasks share a family budget. Data by Epoch AI, CC BY. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	96.11% Reported settings Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.1.3; scorer model_extracted_exact_match; model=kimi-k2.6; run=BTeRdhgt6TFBj6QkGX2j6P; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv
Epoch · SimpleQA Verified · v1.0.0Epoch AI · Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.0.0; scorer simpleqa_scorer Benchmark details Epoch AI internal evaluation. Mean accuracy under the published setting; exact task version and scorer stay separate. Related tasks share a family budget. Data by Epoch AI, CC BY. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	34.9% Reported settings Epoch AI Inspect; task 1.0.0; scorer simpleqa_scorer; model=kimi-k2.6; run=hHnQVatVTbQjM4sfrjw7GH; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv
Vals AI · Finance Agent v2Vals AI · Vals FAB v2 shared six-tool harness; two-hour task limit Benchmark details Overall weighted rubric accuracy, averaged over three runs on 450 tasks. Dealbreaker failures and timeouts score zero. Related categories and all-pass scores are not additional votes. Three-model judge panel; private test set. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	44.9% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"kimi-k2.6","evaluatorModel":"kimi/kimi-k2.6","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-09-10","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":null,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Moonshot AI","harness":null}
Vals AI · Code Migration v1Vals AI · Vals Code Migration shared agent harness Benchmark details Hidden behavior-test pass rate, equally weighted across 40 repositories (30 CLI and 10 COBOL-to-Java). Anti-cheat failures score zero. Code-quality ratings and language splits are not additional votes. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	27.77% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"kimi-k2.6","evaluatorModel":"kimi/kimi-k2.6","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-09-10","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":null,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Moonshot AI","harness":null}
Vals AI · Legal Research Bench v1Vals AI · Vals Legal Research shared five-tool harness; three-hour task limit Benchmark details All-pass accuracy on 208 private legal research tasks. Every expert rubric check must pass; GPT-5.4 judges responses. Partial-credit scores and practice-area splits are not additional votes. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	15.87% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"kimi-k2.6","evaluatorModel":"kimi/kimi-k2.6","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-09-10","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":null,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Moonshot AI","harness":null}
Vals AI · Excel Modeling Benchmark v1Vals AI · Vals EMB shared workbook agent harness; 3.5-hour task limit Benchmark details Mean of seven equally weighted task categories. Template submissions use recalculated Excel cell accuracy; scratch submissions use rubric checks judged by GPT-5.4 Mini XHigh. Partial credit does not mean task completion. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	57.86% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"kimi-k2.6","evaluatorModel":"kimi/kimi-k2.6","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-09-10","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":null,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Moonshot AI","harness":null}
Vals AI · MMLU-Pro v1Vals AI · Vals MMLU-Pro five-shot chain-of-thought; regex answer grading Benchmark details Mean accuracy across 14 subjects under Vals five-shot prompting. Subject splits share one family and are not additional votes. Vals labels this benchmark archived; it is historical corroboration, not ongoing frontier evaluation. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	87.57% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"kimi-k2.6","evaluatorModel":"kimi/kimi-k2.6","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-09-01","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":null,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Moonshot AI","harness":null}
Vals AI · Terminal-Bench 2.1Vals AI · Vals Terminus 2 harness; pass@1 on 89 tasks Benchmark details Overall task pass rate under the shared Terminus 2 configuration. All task tests must pass. Difficulty splits share one family. Fable 5 and Opus 5 mixed-checkpoint fallback runs are excluded. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	53.56% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"kimi-k2.6","evaluatorModel":"kimi/kimi-k2.6","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-09-10","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":null,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":256000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Moonshot AI","harness":null}
Vals AI · Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI · Vals modified OpenHands harness; five hours or 1,000 turns per app Benchmark details Mean app test pass rate on the canonical v1.1 test set. Browser Use executes workflow tests; each test requires at least 90% of its substeps. Automated judging can introduce error. Alternate agents are excluded. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	37.89% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"kimi-k2.6","evaluatorModel":"kimi/kimi-k2.6","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-09-10","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":null,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Moonshot AI","harness":"OpenHands"}
Vals AI · Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI · Vals Harvey held-out legal file-work protocol; internet disabled Benchmark details Mean task resolution across two judges (GPT-5.5 Medium and Sonnet 4.6), requiring every criterion to pass. Criteria pass rates and practice-area splits do not add votes. Shared Harvey family; Fable 5 fallback run excluded. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12.	Not reported	Not reported	1.67% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"kimi-k2.6","evaluatorModel":"kimi/kimi-k2.6","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-09-10","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":null,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Moonshot AI","harness":null}

What these comparisons mean

Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

Download all effort benchmark results · 7,424 results across 240 models · Collected 2026-09-12

Kimi-K2.6 effort benchmarks

Kimi-K2.6

Capability score evidence

One configuration, seven capabilities

Agentic

Hard reasoning

Coding

Human pref

Knowledge

Multimodal

Long context